Defining terrorism a

BKyron Johnson

EFORE the Federal Government’s new Home Office introduces more counter terrorism legislation, it should be striving for an international definition of “a terrorist act”.

It is a massive global challenge. Only then can our security and intelligence agencies talk co-operatively and cohesively with global agencies.

There are more than 220 definitions of terrorism worldwide. The United States has more than 20. Reaching a common and international agreement on a precise definition is critical to enable more effective counter measures. These include policy development, the establishment of domestic and international laws, enforcement of those laws and, where necessary, oversight and review.

The definitional challenge increases when “terrorism” is used interchangeably with related terms, such as “radicalisation” and “extremism” and in some instances, particularly after a terrorist attack, the term “violent extremism”, which is often uttered by the media and politicians in an attempt to describe a terrorist attack.

Describing acts of terrorism as violent extremism is wrong. It risks diminishing or diluting the horror of terrorism. Within the context of terrorism these terms must be treated separately. We cannot allow them to be used interchangeably. For example, extremists are traditionally identified as groups that include skinheads, racists, neo Nazis and some environmental groups.

Extremism and terrorism have their own distinct set of behaviours, techniques, tactics and procedures.

A separate international definition for terrorism without this kind of overlap provides clarity.

Within the context of terrorism, understanding the characteristics of each assists the process of proper definition development. Extremism is a feature of terrorist behaviour.

Extremism contains radical opinion, and intolerance to opposing views.

An extremist must therefore be an individual who has been radicalised. It is a precursor to terrorism, but an extremist is not necessarily a terrorist.

Behind a terrorist act there is a deep-seated belief system that motivates the terrorist to undertake a terrorist act. It is a belief system that terrorists use to justify and normalise their actions and behaviours.

What some in Western society believe are offensive or reprehensible views, does not mean the person holding those views is a terrorist, they are however considered an extremist.

There is a gap between an extremist and a terrorist, radical opinion does not necessarily equate to radical action.

The step to radical action often requires an enabler, a person who plays a large role in driving people to extremist views through a process of radicalisation.

The ultimate goal is to encourage the individual to undertake an act of terrorism without involving themselves directly in the terrorist act.

Rather they use their words, actions and beliefs to influence others, encouraging and motivating them to take up arms, to make a contribution with their own life.

The shift towards terrorism is dependent upon the belief system of the extremist. This is expressed in different ways, for example: INTOLERANCE — here the extremist believes their cause is the right one and in their mind is seen as just and good. The other side is seen as the opposition, and they will affix negative and derisive titles to them.

For example al-Qa’ida refer to the West as the “evil crusaders” and nonbelievers as “infidels”. MORAL IMPERATIVE — the distinction between good and evil is clear, the extremist views their cause as morally correct and superior to all others. They believe they are the moral and ethical elites chosen to lead the oppressed masses to freedom.

For example al-Qa’ida’s efforts to ignite the Islamic Umah. Their objective is to encourage the Muslim world to rise up against the evil Western crusaders. BROAD CONCLUSIONS — extremist conclusions simplify the goals of their opponents. Their generalised comments are not to be debated, they are generally based around their belief system and come from a very poor knowledge base and bereft of objective data. For example, Westerners are evil crusaders against Islam. NEW LANGUAGE/ CONSPIRATORIAL BELIEFS — here language and conspiracy theories are used to demonise the enemy, setting them apart from the extremists’ belief system. Extremists position themselves as the elite with a hidden agenda. Neo Nazis refer to non-European races as “mud people”. They have a clear sense of purpose, understand their mission,